What actually happened with Young's fumble at the goal line?

#106
#106
It was not a TD considering he didn’t have full control of the ball.

Not to mention there’s no actual “proof” Young recovered it according to the camera angle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinthenorth
#109
#109
Where’s the proof Young actually recovered the ball?

You can’t see nothing but a pile of bodies from that camera angle.

Not to mention getting charged for a timeout was bogus. No wonder Heupel was pissed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinthenorth
#110
#110
bamawriter said:
Then they should have announced that the call stood instead of confirming it. Either way it's still a touchdown. What there definitely wasn't is any view that suggests that Young didn't have it, which would have been necessary for an overturned call.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the rule.

Let's say the call on the field was his knee was down on the 6 inch line but the play wasn't blown dead. At the end of the dogpile, UT comes out with the ball.

The replay officials go and look at it and determine it was a fumble. In that circumstance, Bama doesn't get to keep the ball because Young "might" have had it in the dogpile. The only way Bama would keep the ball in this situation is if they could confirm via video evidence that a Bama player had clear possession. By confirming it last night, the replay officials said that Young had clear possession of the ball.
 
#111
#111
BigOrangeMojo said:
Except that's not the rule.

Let's say the call on the field was his knee was down on the 6 inch line but the play wasn't blown dead. At the end of the dogpile, UT comes out with the ball.

The replay officials go and look at it and determine it was a fumble. In that circumstance, Bama doesn't get to keep the ball because Young "might" have had it in the dogpile. The only way Bama would keep the ball in this situation is if they could confirm via evidence that a Bama player had clear possession.
Click to expand...

Your example would only result in UT's possession if the replay showed a fumble and that UT made an immediate recovery. There was zero evidence that UT made an immediate recovery last night. If there was an immediate recovery it was by Young.
 
#113
#113
bamawriter said:
Your example would only result in UT's possession if the replay showed a fumble and that UT made an immediate recovery. There was zero evidence that UT made an immediate recovery last night. If there was an immediate recovery it was by Young.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, he may have fallen on top of the ball, but that doesn't prove he possession or control of the ball.
 
#114
#114
Bryan1 said:
Not necessarily, he may have fallen on top of the ball, but that doesn't prove he possession or control of the ball.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to prove it. The call on the field was TD. To overturn it would require evidence that UT recovered it. That's simply not there.
 
#115
#115
bamawriter said:
It doesn't need to prove it. The call on the field was TD. To overturn it would require evidence that UT recovered it. That's simply not there.
Click to expand...
Then they got the call wrong to start with then. The ball was clearly coming out as he reached for the goal line! They missed the whole fumble call in that case.
 
#116
#116
Pretend this was Hooker, and the call was TN Touchdown and it went to review, and all these circumstances were the same, Hooker fumbled before the goal line, fell on the football, had both his hands around it on the ground. And then Bama dove in and came out of the scrum with the football. If your honest assessment is that it should be Bama’s ball in that situation, then ok…
 
  • Like
Reactions: volwindy
#117
#117
Bryan1 said:
Then they got the call wrong to start with then. The ball was clearly coming out as he reached for the goal line! They missed the whole fumble call in that case.
Click to expand...

After review the ref said that the confirmed call was fumble and recovery by Bama.
 
#121
#121
bamawriter said:
Your example would only result in UT's possession if the replay showed a fumble and that UT made an immediate recovery. There was zero evidence that UT made an immediate recovery last night. If there was an immediate recovery it was by Young.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter if there's never any possession to begin with (think of the plays where the DLs try to pick up a wet football and the ball slides for a few seconds around until there's a dogpile that lasts a few seconds). In that case, who gets the ball?

Again, the replay officials confirmed Young made a recovery and had possession. I didn't see a "clear" recovery but yeah, there's some tint to my glasses
 
#123
#123
Again, this was a borderline call (much like the 4th and 24 in the Ole Miss game). Much like the Ole Miss game, therr were worse calls (targeting) that did not get called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinthenorth
#124
#124
We must have the smartest fanbase in the entire country. We apparently have a multitude of virologist experts, geopolitical experts, and now college football rule experts that grace us with their presence on this site. I’m impressed.
 
#125
#125
bamawriter said:
It doesn't need to prove it. The call on the field was TD. To overturn it would require evidence that UT recovered it. That's simply not there.
Click to expand...

This is false. "TD" isn't a call that has to be have clear evidence to overturn. The call on the field was that "the ball crossed the plane before the fumble," which is called a TD. Replay OVERTURNED that call. Now it's on the replay official to determine who recovered the fumble and the refs have made no call on the field pertaining to that, so..... he doesn't have to have conclusive evidence to overturn any call. He has to see evidence of either team recovering. As stated ad naseum, I challenge anyone here to show me the pic of the ball in Young's possession.

The Vols handed the ball to the refs after the scrum. UT ball at the 20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldVolMan and BigOrangeMojo
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top